Strewth, the ID people are out in force today.

Some points:

(1) If scientist X passes a remark about the universe sure being a

mysterious place, he has not thereby placed himself in the ID camp. ID is a

specific set of arguments about specific scientific topics. Of those

arguments I have seen, none struck me as very convincing.

(2) None of the ID people I have encountered (in person or books) is an

open-minded inquirer trying to uncover facts about the world. Every one I

know of is a Christian looking to justify his faith. This naturally

inclines me to think that they are grinding axes, not conducting

dispassionate science. This is, in my opinion, not only a path to bad

science, but also a path to bad theology. ID is, in my opinion, a species

of Science Envy — like Deconstructionism or Marxism. Science has been

brilliantly successful in the present age at explaining things, making

things, and improving our health and comfort. People whose natural

attraction is to non-scientific disciplines — literaty criticism, history,

theology — want some of the action.

(3) I do not feel myself to be under any moral obligation to set out

detailed arguments against this or that ID-er here on The Corner. Such

arguments can be found all over the web, for those who want them. I have

better things to do than repeat here what can be easily found.

(4) The “coincidence” point (i.e. “How come physical constants are just

precisely what they need to be in order for us to exist?”) is very

fascinating to any thoughtful person. I have never seen an answer that

struck me as very satifactory; but the non-ID answers — e.g. the Anthropic

Principle in its various forms (Google it) — are at least as satisfactory

as the ID ones (“Because God made things that way.”)